On 01/10/14 12:31 AM, James Almer wrote:
> On 01/10/14 12:18 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:57:14PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
>>> On 30/09/14 11:34 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:59:39PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> On 15.09.201
On 01.10.2014 04:34, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:59:39PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
On 15.09.2014 22:03, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 04:08:49PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
On 15/09/14 6:07 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014
On 01/10/14 12:18 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:57:14PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
>> On 30/09/14 11:34 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:59:39PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
On 15.09.2014 22:03, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Mo
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:57:14PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 30/09/14 11:34 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:59:39PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> >> On 15.09.2014 22:03, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 04:08:49PM -0300, James Almer wro
On 30/09/14 11:34 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:59:39PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
>> On 15.09.2014 22:03, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 04:08:49PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
On 15/09/14 6:07 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sun
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:59:39PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> On 15.09.2014 22:03, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 04:08:49PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> >>On 15/09/14 6:07 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >>>On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 10:46:03PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
On 15.09.2014 22:03, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 04:08:49PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
On 15/09/14 6:07 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 10:46:03PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
Signed-off-by: James Almer
about the patchset as a whole, not specificall
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 01:19:58PM -0700, Timothy Gu wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 04:08:49PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> >> I'm not exactly interested in looking around to see if any of this
> >> deprecated
> >> stuff is still us
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 04:08:49PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
>> I'm not exactly interested in looking around to see if any of this deprecated
>> stuff is still used. And IMO reintroducing them in a point release is quite
>> ugly.
>> An
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 04:08:49PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 15/09/14 6:07 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 10:46:03PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: James Almer
> >
> > about the patchset as a whole, not specifically this one
> >
> > we should check
On 15/09/14 6:07 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 10:46:03PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: James Almer
>
> about the patchset as a whole, not specifically this one
>
> we should check if theres any software left around that still uses
> the symbols before re
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 10:46:03PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> Signed-off-by: James Almer
about the patchset as a whole, not specifically this one
we should check if theres any software left around that still uses
the symbols before removing the code completely and if so consider
to reintroduce
Signed-off-by: James Almer
---
libavcodec/avcodec.h | 5 -
libavcodec/version.h | 3 ---
2 files changed, 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libavcodec/avcodec.h b/libavcodec/avcodec.h
index fb1c9ca..e59e351 100644
--- a/libavcodec/avcodec.h
+++ b/libavcodec/avcodec.h
@@ -42,11 +42,6 @@
#include
13 matches
Mail list logo